Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:42, 20 January 2025

Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition from political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and completely controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society. In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all socio-political power is held by a dictator, who also controls the national politics and the peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and by friendly private mass communications media.

The totalitarian government uses ideology to control most aspects of human life, such as the political economy of the country, the system of education, the arts, the sciences, and the private-life morality of the citizens. In the exercise of socio-political power, the difference between a totalitarian regime of government and an authoritarian regime of government is one of degree; whereas totalitarianism features a charismatic dictator and a fixed worldview, authoritarianism only features a dictator who holds power for the sake of holding power, and is supported, either jointly or individually, by a military junta and by the socio-economic elites who are the ruling class of the country.

Definitions

Contemporary background

Modern political science catalogues three régimes of government: (i) the democratic, (ii) the authoritarian, and (iii) the totalitarian. Varying by political culture, the functional characteristics of the totalitarian régime of government are: political repression of all opposition (individual and collective); a cult of personality about The Leader; official economic interventionism (controlled wages and prices); official censorship of all mass communication media (the press, textbooks, cinema, television, radio, internet); official mass surveillance-policing of public places; and state terrorism. In the essay "Democide in Totalitarian States: Mortacracies and Megamurderers" (1994) the American political scientist Rudolph Rummel said that:

There is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature, including the denial that such systems even exist. I define a totalitarian state as one with a system of government that is unlimited, constitutionally or by countervailing powers in society (such as by a Church, rural gentry, labor unions, or regional powers); is not held responsible to the public by periodic secret and competitive elections; and employs its unlimited power to control all aspects of society, including the family, religion, education, business, private property, and social relationships. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union was thus totalitarian, as was Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, and U Ne Win's Burma.
Totalitarianism is, then, a political ideology for which a totalitarian government is the agency for realizing its ends. Thus, totalitarianism characterizes such ideologies as state socialism (as in Burma), Marxism–Leninism as in former East Germany, and Nazism. Even revolutionary Muslim Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1978–79 has been totalitarian—here totalitarianism was married to Muslim fundamentalism. In short, totalitarianism is the ideology of absolute power. State socialism, Communism, Nazism, fascism, and Muslim fundamentalism have been some of its recent raiments. Totalitarian governments have been its agency. The state, with its international legal sovereignty and independence, has been its base. As will be pointed out, mortacracy is the result.

Degree of control

In exercising the power of government upon a society, the application of an official dominant ideology differentiates the worldview of the totalitarian régime from the worldview of the authoritarian régime, which is "only concerned with political power, and, as long as is not contested, gives society a certain degree of liberty." Having no ideology to propagate, the politically secular authoritarian government "does not attempt to change the world and human nature", whereas the "totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens", by way of an official "totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopolistic control of industrial mass society."

Historical background

From the right-wing perspective, the social phenomenon of political totalitarianism is a product of Modernism, which the philosopher Karl Popper said originated from humanist philosophy; from the Republic (res publica) proposed by Plato in Ancient Greece, from Hegel's conception of the State as a polity of peoples, and from the political economy of Karl Marx in the 19th century—yet historians and philosophers of those periods dispute the historiographic accuracy of Popper's 20th-century interpretation and delineation of the historical origins of totalitarianism, because the ancient Greek philosopher Plato did not invent the modern State.

In the 20th century, Giovanni Gentile proposed Italian Fascism as a political ideology with a philosophy that is "totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unity inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people"; Gentile expessed his ideas in "The Doctrine of Fascism", an essay he co-authored with Benito Mussolini. In 1920s Germany, during the Weimar Republic (1918–1933), the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt integrated Gentile's Fascist philosophy of united national purpose to the supreme-leader ideology of the Führerprinzip. In the mid 20th-century, the German academics Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer traced the origin of totalitarianism to the Age of Reason (17th–18th centuries), especially to the anthropocentrist proposition that: "Man has become the master of the world, a master unbound by any links to Nature, society, and history", which excludes the intervention of supernatural beings to earthly politics of government.

American historian William Rubinstein wrote that:

The 'Age of Totalitarianism' included nearly all the infamous examples of genocide in modern history, headed by the Jewish Holocaust, but also comprising the mass murders and purges of the Communist world, other mass killings carried out by Nazi Germany and its allies, and also the Armenian genocide of 1915. All these slaughters, it is argued here, had a common origin, the collapse of the elite structure and normal modes of government of much of central, eastern and southern Europe as a result of World War I, without which surely neither Communism nor Fascism would have existed except in the minds of unknown agitators and crackpots.

Since the Cold War, some of the so-called 'traditionalist', or 'totalitarian', historians, (see below) claimed that Vladimir Lenin who was one of the leaders of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia was the first politician to establish a sovereign state of the totalitarian model; such description of Lenin is opposed by the so-called 'revisionist' historians of Communism and the Soviet Union as well as by a broad range of authors including Hannah Arendt. As the Duce leading the Italian people to the future, Benito Mussolini said that his dictatorial régime of government made Fascist Italy (1922–1943) the representative Totalitarian State: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Likewise, in The Concept of the Political (1927), the Nazi jurist Schmitt used the term der Totalstaat (the Total State) to identify, describe, and establish the legitimacy of a German totalitarian state led by a supreme leader; later Joseph Goebbels would call a totalitarian state the goal of the Nazi Party.

After the Second World War (1937–1945), U.S. political discourse (domestic and foreign) included the concepts (ideologic and political) and the terms totalitarian, totalitarianism, and totalitarian model. In the post-war U.S. of the 1950s, to politically discredit the anti-fascism of the Second World War as misguided foreign policy, McCarthyite politicians claimed that Left-wing totalitarianism was an existential threat to Western civilisation, and so facilitated the creation of the American national security state to execute the anti-communist Cold War (1945–1989) that was fought by client-state proxies of the US and the USSR.

Historiography

Kremlinology

During the Russo–American Cold War (1945–1989), the academic field of Kremlinology (analysing politburo policy politics) produced historical and policy analyses dominated by the totalitarian model of the USSR as a police state controlled by the absolute power of the supreme leader Stalin, who heads a monolithic, centralised hierarchy of government. The study of the internal politics of the politburo crafting policy at the Kremlin produced two schools of historiographic interpretation of Cold War history: (i) traditionalist Kremlinology and (ii) revisionist Kremlinology. Traditionalist Kremlinologists worked with and for the totalitarian model and produced interpretations of Kremlin politics and policies that supported the police-state version of Communist Russia. The revisionist Kremlinologists presented alternative interpretations of Kremlin politics and reported the effects of politburo policies upon Soviet society, civil and military. Despite the limitations of police-state historiography, revisionist Kremlinologists said that the old image of the Stalinist USSR of the 1950s—a totalitarian state intent upon world domination—was oversimplified and inaccurate, because the death of Stalin changed Soviet society. After the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, most revisionist Kremlinologists worked the national archives of ex–Communist states, especially the State Archive of the Russian Federation about Soviet-period Russia.

Totalitarian model for policy

In the 1950s, the political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich said that Communist states, such as Soviet Russia and Red China, were countries systematically controlled with the five features of the totalitarian model of government by a supreme leader: (i) an official dominant ideology that includes a cult of personality about the leader, (ii) control of all civil and military weapons, (iii) control of the public and the private mass communications media, (iv) the use of state terrorism to police the populace, and (v) a political party of mass membership who perpetually re-elect The Leader.

In the 1960s, the revisionist Kremlinologists researched the organisations and studied the policies of the relatively autonomous bureaucracies that influenced the crafting of high-level policy for governing Soviet society in the USSR. Revisionist Kremlinologists, such as J. Arch Getty and Lynne Viola, transcended the interpretational limitations of the totalitarian model by recognising and reporting that the Soviet government, the communist party, and the civil society of the USSR had greatly changed upon the death of Stalin. The revisionist social history indicated that the social forces of Soviet society had compelled the Government of the USSR to adjust public policy to the actual political economy of a Soviet society composed of pre–War and post–War generations of people with different perceptions of the utility of Communist economics for all the Russias. Hence, Russian modern history had outdated the totalitarian model that was the post–Stalinist perception of the police-state USSR of the 1950s.

Politics of historical interpretation

The Western historiography of the USSR and of the Soviet period of Russian history and is in two schools of research and interpretation: (i) the traditionalist school of historiography and (ii) the revisionist school of historiography; the traditionalists and neo-traditionalists, or anti-revisionists, are also known as 'totalitarian school' or 'totalitarian approach' and 'Cold War' historians, for relying on concepts and interpretations rooted in the early years of the Cold War and even in the sphere Russian White émigrés of the 1920s.

Traditionalist-school historians characterise themselves as objective reporters of the claimed totalitarianism allegedly inherent to Marxism, to Communism, and to the political nature of Communist states, such as the USSR, while the Cold War revisionists criticized the politically liberal and anti-communist bias they perceived in the predominance of the traditionalists and describe their approach as emotional and oversimplifying. Revisionist-school historians criticise the traditionalist school's concentration upon the police-state aspects of Cold War history which leads it to anti-communist interpretation of history biased towards a right-wing interpretation of the documentary facts. The revisionists also oppose the equation of Nazism and Communism and Stalinism and stress such their ideological differences as the humanist and egalitarian origins of Communist ideology. In the 1960s, revisionists studying the Cold War and the Communist movement in the U.S. criticized the dominant ideas that American Communists were an actual threat to the United States and that the Cold War was the fault of Stalin's territorial and political ambitions and that Soviet expansionsim and its alleged strife to conquer the world forced the U.S. to turn from isolationism to a global containment policy.

The difference between these two historiographic directions is not only political, but also as methodological: the 'traditionalists' focus on politics, ideology and personalities of the Bolshevik and Communist leaders, putting the latter in the centre of history while largely ignoring social processes, and traditionalists present "history from above", directed by the leaders, while the revisionists put emphasis on "history from below" and social history of the Soviet regime, and they describe the traditionalists as '(right-wing) romantics.' In their turn, the traditionalists defend their approach and methodology, dismiss focus on social history and accuse their opponents of Marxism and of rationalizing the actions of the Bolsheviks and failing to recognize the primary role of "one man" leading a movement (Vladimir Lenin or Adolf Hitler). Between the late 1970s and early 1980s, revisionist approaches became largely accepted in academic circles, and the term "revisionism" migrated to characterize a group of social historians focusing on the working class and the upheavals of the Stalin years. At the same time, traditionalist historians retained popularity and influence outside academic circles, especially in politics and public spheres of the United States, where they supported harder policies towards the USSR: for example, Zbigniew Brzezinski served as National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, while Richard Pipes, a prominent historian of 'totalitarian school', headed the CIA group Team B; after 1991, their views have found popularity not only in the West, but also in the former USSR.

Such different approaches led to different understanding of such events as the Russian Revolution and, more narrowly, the October Revolution led by the Bolsheviks. Since the 1980s, there has been a debate between the traditionalists and the revisionists over the nature of the October Revolution and whether to consider the government of Vladimir Lenin a totalitarian dictatorship; the core idea of the traditionalists was that the Revolution was a violent act carried out "from above" by a small groups of intellectuals with brute force. Such traditionalist historians as Richard Pipes claimed that Soviet Russia of 1917–1924 was as totalitarian as the Soviet Union under Stalin, and that Stalinist totalitarianism was a mere continuation of Lenin's policies, and that totalitarianism was prefigured by Lenin's ideology; more to it, such historians stated that Lenin was the "inventor" (Riley) of totalitarianism in general and that further totalitarian regimes just implemented the policies 'invented' by Lenin: for example, Pipes compared Lenin to Hitler and stated that "The Stalinist and Nazi holocausts" stemmed from Lenin's Red Terror and had "much greater decorum" than the latter. In their turn, the revisionists claimed that the Bolsheviks did not have a 'blueprint', and stressed the genuinely 'popular' nature of the 1917 Revolution, and tended to see a discontinuity between Leninism and Stalinism; a revisionist historian Ronald Suny cites Hannah Arendt who distinguished Lenin's terror of the Civil War from totalitarian terror aimed not at specific enemies but at fulfilling ideological goals, most importantly solving the problem of inequality and poverty; according to Arendt, totalitarian terror is not a "a means to exterminate and frighten opponents, but as an instrument to rule masses who are perfectly obedient."

According to Evan Mawdsley, "the 'revisionist’ school had been dominant from the 1970s", and achieved "some success" in challenging the traditionalists.

New semantics

In 1980, in a book review of How the Soviet Union is Governed (1979), by J.F. Hough and Merle Fainsod, William Zimmerman said that "the Soviet Union has changed substantially. Our knowledge of the Soviet Union has changed, as well. We all know that the traditional paradigm no longer satisfies , despite several efforts, primarily in the early 1960s (the directed society, totalitarianism without police terrorism, the system of conscription) to articulate an acceptable variant . We have come to realize that models which were, in effect, offshoots of totalitarian models do not provide good approximations of post–Stalinist reality ." In a book review of Totalitarian Space and the Destruction of Aura (2019), by Ahmed Saladdin, Michael Scott Christofferson said that Hannah Arendt's interpretation of the USSR after Stalin was her attempt to intellectually distance her work from "the Cold War misuse of the concept " as anti-Communist propaganda.

In the essay, "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Word" (2010), the historian John Connelly said that totalitarianism is a useful word, but that the old 1950s theory about totalitarianism is defunct among scholars, because "The word is as functional now as it was fifty years ago. It means the kind of régime that existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Soviet satellites, Communist China, and maybe Fascist Italy, where the word originated. . . . Who are we to tell Václav Havel or Adam Michnik that they were fooling themselves when they perceived their rulers as totalitarian? Or, for that matter, any of the millions of former subjects of Soviet-type rule who use the local equivalents of the Czech totalita to describe the systems they lived under before 1989? is a useful word, and everyone knows what it means as a general referent. Problems arise when people confuse the useful descriptive term with the old 'theory' from the 1950s."

In Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism (2022), the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way said that nascent revolutionary régimes usually became totalitarian régimes if not destroyed with a military invasion. Such a revolutionary régime begins as a social revolution independent of the existing social structures of the state (not political succession, election to office, or a military coup d'état). For example, the Soviet Union and Maoist China were founded after the years long Russian Civil War (1917–1922) and Chinese Civil War (1927-1936 and 1945–1949), respectively, not merely state succession. They produce totalitarian dictatorships with three functional characteristics: (i) a cohesive ruling class comprising the military and the political élites, (ii) a strong and loyal coercive apparatus of police and military forces to suppress dissent, and (iii) the destruction of rival political parties, organisations, and independent centres of socio-political power. Moreover, the unitary functioning of the characteristics of totalitarianism allow a totalitarian government to perdure against economic crises (internal and external), large-scale failures of policy, mass social-discontent, and political pressure from other countries.

Some totalitarian one-party states were established through coups orchestrated by military officers loyal to a vanguard party that advanced socialist revolution, such as the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (1962), Syrian Arab Republic (1963), and Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978).

Politics

Early usages

Italy

In 1923, in the early reign of Mussolini's government (1922–1943), the anti-fascist academic Giovanni Amendola was the first Italian public intellectual to define and describe Totalitarianism as a régime of government wherein the supreme leader personally exercises total power (political, military, economic, social) as Il Duce of The State. That Italian fascism is a political system with an ideological, utopian worldview unlike the realistic politics of the personal dictatorship of a man who holds power for the sake of holding power.

Later, the theoretician of Italian Fascism Giovanni Gentile ascribed politically positive meanings to the ideological terms totalitarianism and totalitarian in defence of Duce Mussolini's legal, illegal, and legalistic social engineering of Italy. As ideologues, the intellectual Gentile and the politician Mussolini used the term totalitario to identify and describe the ideological nature of the societal structures (government, social, economic, political) and the practical goals (economic, geopolitical, social) of the new Fascist Italy (1922–1943), which was the "total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals." In proposing the totalitarian society of Italian Fascism, Gentile defined and described a civil society wherein totalitarian ideology (subservience to the state) determined the public sphere and the private sphere of the lives of the Italian people. That to achieve the Fascist utopia in the imperial future, Italian totalitarianism must politicise human existence into subservience to the state, which Mussolini summarised with the epigram: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, contended that Mussolini's dictatorship was not a totalitarian regime until 1938. Arguing that one of the key characteristics of a totalitarian movement was its ability to garner mass mobilization, Arendt wrote:

"While all political groups depend upon proportionate strength, totalitarian movements depend on the sheer force of numbers to such an extent that totalitarian regimes seem impossible, even under otherwise favorable circumstances, in countries with relatively small populations.... ven Mussolini, who was so fond of the term "totalitarian state," did not attempt to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contented himself with dictatorship and one-party rule."

For example, Victor Emmanuel III still reigned as a figurehead and helped play a role in the dismissal of Mussolini in 1943. Also, the Catholic Church was allowed to independently exercise its religious authority in Vatican City per the 1929 Lateran Treaty, under the leadership of Pope Pius XI (1922–1939) and Pope Pius XII (1939–1958).

Britain

One of the first people to use the term totalitarianism in the English language was Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it united the Soviet and German dictatorships more than it divided them. The label totalitarian was twice affixed to Nazi Germany during Winston Churchill's speech of 5 October 1938 before the House of Commons, in opposition to the Munich Agreement, by which France and Great Britain consented to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland. Churchill was then a backbencher MP representing the Epping constituency. In a radio address two weeks later, Churchill again employed the term, this time applying the concept to "a Communist or a Nazi tyranny."

Germany

As the Nazis rose to power in 1933, they began using the concept of totaliarian state propagated by Mussolini and Schmitt to characterize their regime. Joseph Goebbels stated in his 1933 speech: "Our party has always aspired to the totalitarian state. the goal of the revolution has to be a totalitarian state that penetrates into all spheres of public life."

Spain

José María Gil-Robles y Quiñones, the leader of the historic Spanish reactionary party called the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (CEDA), declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian polity" and went on to say: "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate it." General Francisco Franco was determined not to have competing right-wing parties in Spain and CEDA was dissolved in April 1937. Later, Gil-Robles went into exile.

General Franco began using the term 'totalitarian' towards his regime during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). On 1 October 1936, he announced his intention to organize Spain "within a broad totalitarian concept of unity and continuity", and practical realization of this intention began with the forced unification of all parties of the Nationalist zone into FET y de las JONS, the sole ruling party of the new regime; after that, he and his ideologues stressed the "missionary and totalitarian" nature of the new state that was under construction "as in other countries of totalitarian regime", these being Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and totalitarianism was described as an essentially Spanish way of government. In December 1942, as World War II progressed, Franco stopped using the term, and it received negative connotation as Franco called for struggle with "Bolshevist totalitarianism."

Politically matured by having fought and been wounded and survived the Spanish Civil War, in the essay "Why I Write" (1946), the socialist George Orwell said, "the Spanish war and other events in 1936–37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." That future totalitarian régimes would spy upon their societies and use the mass communications media to perpetuate their dictatorships, that "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."

USSR

In the aftermath of the Second World War (1937–1945), in the lecture series (1945) and book (1946) titled The Soviet Impact on the Western World, the British historian E. H. Carr said that "the trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable" in the decolonising countries of Eurasia. That revolutionary Marxism–Leninism was the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by the USSR's rapid industrialisation (1929–1941) and the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945) that defeated Nazi Germany. That, despite those achievements in social engineering and warfare, in dealing with the countries of the Communist bloc only the "blind and incurable" ideologue could ignore the Communist régimes' trend towards police-state totalitarianism in their societies.

Cold War

In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the political scientist Hannah Arendt said that, in their times in the early 20th century, corporate Nazism and soviet Communism were new forms of totalitarian government, not updated versions of the old tyrannies of a military or a corporate dictatorship. That the human emotional comfort of political certainty is the source of the mass appeal of revolutionary totalitarian régimes, because the totalitarian worldview gives psychologically comforting and definitive answers about the complex socio-political mysteries of the past, of the present, and of the future; thus did Nazism propose that all history is the history of ethnic conflict, of the survival of the fittest race; and Marxism–Leninism proposes that all history is the history of class conflict, of the survival of the fittest social class. That upon the believers' acceptance of the universal applicability of totalitarian ideology, the Nazi revolutionary and the Communist revolutionary then possess the simplistic moral certainty with which to justify all other actions by the State, either by an appeal to historicism (Law of History) or by an appeal to nature, as expedient actions necessary to establishing an authoritarian state apparatus.

True belief

In The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), Eric Hoffer said that political mass movements, such as Italian Fascism (1922–1943), German Nazism (1933–1945), and Russian Stalinism (1929–1953), featured the common political praxis of negatively comparing their totalitarian society as culturally superior to the morally decadent societies of the democratic countries of Western Europe. That such mass psychology indicates that participating in and then joining a political mass movement offers people the prospect of a glorious future, that such membership in a community of political belief is an emotional refuge for people with few accomplishments in their real lives, in both the public sphere and in the private sphere. In the event, the true believer is assimilated into a collective body of true believers who are mentally protected with "fact-proof screens from reality" drawn from the official texts of the totalitarian ideology.

Collaborationism

In "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?" (2018) the historian Paul Hanebrink said that Hitler's assumption of power in Germany in 1933 frightened Christians into anti-communism, because for European Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, the new postwar 'culture war' crystallized as a struggle against Communism. Throughout the European interwar period (1918–1939), right-wing totalitarian régimes indoctrinated Christians to demonize the Communist régime in Russia as the apotheosis of secular materialism and a militarized threat to worldwide Christian social and moral order". That throughout Europe, the Christians who became anti-communist totalitarians perceived Communism and communist régimes of government as an existential threat to the moral order of their respective societies; and collaborated with Fascists and Nazis in the idealistic hope that anti-communism would restore the societies of Europe to their root Christian culture.

Totalitarian model

In the U.S. geopolitics of the late 1950s, the Cold War concepts and the terms totalitarianism, totalitarian, and totalitarian model, presented in Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956), by Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, became common usages in the foreign-policy discourse of the U.S. Subsequently established, the totalitarian model became the analytic and interpretational paradigm for Kremlinology, the academic study of the monolithic police-state USSR. The Kremlinologists analyses of the internal politics (policy and personality) of the politburo crafting policy (national and foreign) yielded strategic intelligence for dealing with the USSR. Moreover, the U.S. also used the totalitarian model when dealing with fascist totalitarian régimes, such as that of a banana republic country. As anti–Communist political scientists, Friedrich and Brzezinski described and defined totalitarianism with the monolithic totalitarian model of six interlocking, mutually supporting characteristics:

1. Elaborate guiding ideology.
2. One-party state
3. State terrorism
4. Monopoly control of weapons
5. Monopoly control of the mass communications media
6. Centrally directed and controlled planned economy

Criticism of the totalitarian model

As traditionalist historians, Friedrich and Brzezinski said that the totalitarian régimes of government in the USSR (1917), Fascist Italy (1922–1943), and Nazi Germany (1933–1945) originated from the political discontent caused by the socio-economic aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918), which rendered impotent the government of Weimar Germany (1918–1933) to resist, counter, and quell left-wing and right-wing revolutions of totalitarian temper. Revisionist historians noted the historiographic limitations of the totalitarian-model interpretation of Soviet and Russian history, because Friedrich and Brzezinski did not take account of the actual functioning of the Soviet social system, neither as a political entity (the USSR) nor as a social entity (Soviet civil society), which could be understood in terms of socialist class struggle among the professional élites (political, academic, artistic, scientific, military) seeking upward mobility into the nomenklatura, the ruling class of the USSR. That the political economics of the politburo allowed measured executive power to regional authorities for them to implement policy was interpreted by revisionist historians as evidence that a totalitarian régime adapts the political economy to include new economic demands from civil society; whereas traditionalist historians interpreted the politico-economic collapse of the USSR to prove that the totalitarian régime of economics failed because the politburo did not adapt the political economy to include actual popular participation in the Soviet economy.

The historian of Nazi Germany, Karl Dietrich Bracher said that the totalitarian typology developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski was an inflexible model, for not including the revolutionary dynamics of bellicose people committed to realising the violent revolution required to establish totalitarianism in a sovereign state. That the essence of totalitarianism is total control to remake every aspect of civil society using a universal ideology—which is interpreted by an authoritarian leader—to create a collective national identity by merging civil society into the State. Given that the supreme leaders of the Communist, the Fascist, and the Nazi total states did possess government administrators, Bracher said that a totalitarian government did not necessarily require an actual supreme leader, and could function by way of collective leadership. The American historian Walter Laqueur agreed that Bracher's totalitarian typology more accurately described the functional reality of the politburo than did the totalitarian typology proposed by Friedrich and Brzezinski.

In Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968) the political scientist Raymond Aron said that for a régime of government to be considered totalitarian it can be described and defined with the totalitarian model of five interlocking, mutually supporting characteristics:

1. A one-party state where the ruling party has a monopoly on all political activity.
2. A state ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given official status as the only authority.
3. A state monopoly on information; control of the mass communications media to broadcast the official truth.
4. A state-controlled economy featuring major economic entities under state control.
5. An ideological police-state terror; criminalisation of political, economic, and professional activities.

Post–Cold War

Laure Neumayer posited that "despite the disputes over its heuristic value and its normative assumptions, the concept of totalitarianism made a vigorous return to the political and academic fields at the end of the Cold War". In the 1990s, François Furet made a comparative analysis and used the term totalitarian twins to link Nazism and Stalinism. Eric Hobsbawm criticised Furet for his temptation to stress the existence of a common ground between two systems with different ideological roots. In Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion, Žižek wrote that "he liberating effect" of General Augusto Pinochet's arrest "was exceptional", as "the fear of Pinochet dissipated, the spell was broken, the taboo subjects of torture and disappearances became the daily grist of the news media; the people no longer just whispered, but openly spoke about prosecuting him in Chile itself". Saladdin Ahmed cited Hannah Arendt as stating that "the Soviet Union can no longer be called totalitarian in the strict sense of the term after Stalin's death", writing that "this was the case in General August Pinochet's Chile, yet it would be absurd to exempt it from the class of totalitarian regimes for that reason alone". Saladdin posited that while Chile under Pinochet had no "official ideology", there was one man who ruled Chile from "behind the scenes", "none other than Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberalism and the most influential teacher of the Chicago Boys, was Pinochet's adviser". In this sense, Saladdin criticised the totalitarian concept because it was only being applied to "opposing ideologies" and it was not being applied to liberalism.

In the early 2010s, Richard Shorten, Vladimir Tismăneanu, and Aviezer Tucker posited that totalitarian ideologies can take different forms in different political systems but all of them focus on utopianism, scientism, or political violence. They posit that Nazism and Stalinism both emphasised the role of specialisation in modern societies and they also saw polymathy as a thing of the past, and they also stated that their claims were supported by statistics and science, which led them to impose strict ethical regulations on culture, use psychological violence, and persecute entire groups. Their arguments have been criticised by other scholars due to their partiality and anachronism. Juan Francisco Fuentes treats totalitarianism as an "invented tradition" and he believes that the notion of "modern despotism" is a "reverse anachronism"; for Fuentes, "the anachronistic use of totalitarian/totalitarianism involves the will to reshape the past in the image and likeness of the present".

Other studies try to link modern technological changes to totalitarianism. According to Shoshana Zuboff, the economic pressures of modern surveillance capitalism are driving the intensification of connection and monitoring online with spaces of social life becoming open to saturation by corporate actors, directed at the making of profit and/or the regulation of action. Toby Ord believed that George Orwell's fears of totalitarianism constituted a notable early precursor to modern notions of anthropogenic existential risk, the concept that a future catastrophe could permanently destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life due in part to technological changes, creating a permanent technological dystopia. Ord said that Orwell's writings show that his concern was genuine rather than just a throwaway part of the fictional plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four. In 1949, Orwell wrote that " ruling class which could guard against (four previously enumerated sources of risk) would remain in power permanently". That same year, Bertrand Russell wrote that "modern techniques have made possible a new intensity of governmental control, and this possibility has been exploited very fully in totalitarian states".

In 2016, The Economist described China's developed Social Credit System under Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping's administration, to screen and rank its citizens based on their personal behavior, as totalitarian. Opponents of China's ranking system say that it is intrusive and it is just another tool which a one-party state can use to control the population. Supporters say that it will transform China into a more civilised and law-abiding society. Shoshana Zuboff considers it instrumentarian rather than totalitarian.

North Korea is the only country in East Asia to survive totalitarianism after the death of Kim Il-sung in 1994 and handed over to his son Kim Jong-il and grandson Kim Jong-un in 2011, as of today in the 21st century.

Other emerging technologies that could empower future totalitarian regimes include brain-reading, contact tracing, and various applications of artificial intelligence. Philosopher Nick Bostrom said that there is a possible trade-off, namely that some existential risks might be mitigated by the establishment of a powerful and permanent world government, and in turn the establishment of such a government could enhance the existential risks which are associated with the rule of a permanent dictatorship.

Religious totalitarianism

Islamic

The Taliban is a totalitarian Sunni Islamist militant group and political movement in Afghanistan that emerged in the aftermath of the Soviet–Afghan War and the end of the Cold War. It governed most of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and returned to power in 2021, controlling the entirety of Afghanistan. Features of its totalitarian governance include the imposition of Pashtunwali culture of the majority Pashtun ethnic group as religious law, the exclusion of minorities and non-Taliban members from the government, and extensive violations of women's rights.

The Islamic State is a Salafi-Jihadist militant group that was established in 2006 by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi during the Iraqi insurgency, under the name "Islamic State of Iraq". Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the organization later changed its name to the "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" in 2013. The group espouses a totalitarian ideology that is a fundamentalist hybrid of Global Jihadism, Wahhabism, and Qutbism. Following its territorial expansion in 2014, the group renamed itself as the "Islamic State" and declared itself as a caliphate that sought domination over the Muslim world and established what has been described as a "political-religious totalitarian regime". The quasi-state held significant territory in Iraq and Syria during the course of the Third Iraq War and the Syrian civil war from 2013 to 2019 under the dictatorship of its first Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who imposed a strict interpretation of Sharia law.

Christian

Francoist Spain (1936–1975), under the dictator Francisco Franco, had been commonly characterized as totalitarian until 1964, when Juan Linz challenged this characterization and instead described Francoism as "authoritarian" because of its "limited degree of political pluralism" caused by the struggle between 'Francoist families' (Falangists, Carlists, etc.) within the sole legal party FET y de las JONS and the Movimiento Nacional and by other such features as, according to Linz, lack of 'totalitarian' ideology, as Franco relied on National Catholicism and traditionalism. Such revision caused a major debate, some critics of Linz felt that his concept may be a form of acquittal of Francoism and did not concern its early phase (often called "First Francoism"). Later debates focused on whether the regime could be described as 'fascist' rather than whether it was totalitarian; some historians stressed the traits of a military dictatorship, while the others emphasized the Fascist component, calling the regime a para-fascist or 'fascistized' dictatorship. According to Enrique Moradiellos, "it is now increasingly rare to define Francoism as a truly fascist and totalitarian regime", although he writes that the debates on Francoism haven't finished yet. Still, some historians continue to criticize Linz and describe the regime as totalitarian, although now this characterization is usually limited to ten to twenty years of the "First Francoism."

Linz wrote that "the heteronomous control of the ideological content of Catholic thought by a universal church and specifically by the Pope is one of the most serious obstacles to the creation of a truly totalitarian system..." This argument is also debated: "The frequent and saturated references to Francoist Catholic humanism... coming from Christian theology, could hardly conceal the fact that the individual was only understood as a citizen to the extent of his adherence to the Catholic, hierarchical and economically privatist community that the military uprising had saved"; "Catholic values ​​that permeated the conservative ideological substratum... were precisely what was wielded by the Francoist Spanish political doctrine of the late thirties and early forties to justify the need for the constitution of a totalitarian State at the service and expansion of the Catholic religion."

Franco was portrayed as a fervent Catholic and a staunch defender of Catholicism, the declared state religion. Civil marriages that had taken place in the Republic were declared null and void unless they had been validated by the Church, along with divorces. Divorce, contraception and abortions were forbidden. According to historian Stanley G. Payne, Franco had more day-to-day power than Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin possessed at the respective heights of their power. Payne noted that Hitler and Stalin at least maintained rubber-stamp parliaments, while Franco dispensed with even that formality in the early years of his rule. According to Payne, the lack of even a rubber-stamp parliament made Franco's government "the most purely arbitrary in the world." However, from 1959 to 1974 the "Spanish Miracle" took place under the leadership of technocrats, many of whom were members of Opus Dei and a new generation of politicians that replaced the old Falangist guard. Reforms were implemented in the 1950s and Spain abandoned autarky, reassigning economic authority from the isolationist Falangist movement. This led to massive economic growth that lasted until the mid-1970s, known as the "Spanish miracle". This is comparable to De-Stalinization in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, where Francoist Spain changed from being openly totalitarian to an authoritarian dictatorship with a certain degree of economic freedom.

The city of Geneva under John Calvin's leadership has also been characterised as totalitarian by scholars.

Revisionist school of Soviet-period history

Soviet society after Stalin

The death of Stalin in 1953 voided the simplistic totalitarian model of the police-state USSR as the epitome of the totalitarian state. A fact common to the revisionist-school interpretations of the reign of Stalin (1927–1953) was that the USSR was a country with weak social institutions, and that state terrorism against Soviet citizens indicated the political illegitimacy of Stalin's government. That the citizens of the USSR were not devoid of personal agency or of material resources for living, nor were Soviet citizens psychologically atomised by the totalist ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—because "the Soviet political system was chaotic, that institutions often escaped the control of the centre, and that Stalin's leadership consisted, to a considerable extent, in responding, on an ad hoc basis, to political crises as they arose." That the legitimacy of Stalin's régime of government relied upon the popular support of the Soviet citizenry as much as Stalin relied upon state terrorism for their support. That by politically purging Soviet society of anti–Soviet people Stalin created employment and upward social mobility for the post–War generation of working class citizens for whom such socio-economic progress was unavailable before the Russian Revolution (1917–1924). That the people who benefited from Stalin's social engineering became Stalinists loyal to the USSR; thus, the Revolution had fulfilled her promise to those Stalinist citizens and they supported Stalin because of the state terrorism.

German Democratic Republic (GDR)

In the case of East Germany, (0000) Eli Rubin posited that East Germany was not a totalitarian state but rather a society shaped by the confluence of unique economic and political circumstances interacting with the concerns of ordinary citizens.

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur posited that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were guilty of confusing popularity with morality and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing arguments against the concept of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state. Laqueur stated that the revisionists' arguments with regard to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by Ernst Nolte regarding German history. For Laqueur, concepts such as modernisation were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not. Laqueur's argument has been criticised by modern "revisionist school" historians such as Paul Buhle, who said that Laqueur wrongly equates Cold War revisionism with the German revisionism; the latter reflected a "revanchist, military-minded conservative nationalism." Moreover, Michael Parenti and James Petras have suggested that the totalitarianism concept has been politically employed and used for anti-communist purposes. Parenti has also analysed how "left anti-communists" attacked the Soviet Union during the Cold War. For Petras, the CIA funded the Congress for Cultural Freedom to attack "Stalinist anti-totalitarianism." Into the 21st century, Enzo Traverso has attacked the creators of the concept of totalitarianism as having invented it to designate the enemies of the West.

According to some scholars, calling Joseph Stalin totalitarian instead of authoritarian has been asserted to be a high-sounding but specious excuse for Western self-interest, just as surely as the counterclaim that allegedly debunking the totalitarian concept may be a high-sounding but specious excuse for Russian self-interest. For Domenico Losurdo, totalitarianism is a polysemic concept with origins in Christian theology and applying it to the political sphere requires an operation of abstract schematism which makes use of isolated elements of historical reality to place fascist regimes and the Soviet Union in the dock together, serving the anti-communism of Cold War-era intellectuals rather than reflecting intellectual research.

See also

• List of totalitarian regimes
• Inverted totalitarianism
• Totalitarian democracy
• Guided democracy
• Illiberal democracy
• Defective democracy
• Herrenvolk democracy
• Ethnic democracy
• Racial segregation
• Apartheid
• Crime of apartheid
• Settler colonialism
• Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
• Surveillance capitalism
• List of cults of personality
• Totalitarian architecture
• Nazism
• Fascism
• Stalinism

References

1. ^ Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century. Norton. pp. 73–74. ISBN 0393048187.
2. ^ Pipes, Richard (1995). Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: Vintage Books, Random House. p. 243. ISBN 0394502426.
3. ^ Cinpoes, Radu (2010). Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury. p. 70. ISBN 978-1848851665.
4. Linz, Juan José (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
5. Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
6. Suh, J.J. (2012). Origins of North Korea's Juche: Colonialism, War, and Development. Lexington Books. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-7391-7659-7. Retrieved 2023-02-05.
7. Rummel, Rudolph (1994). "Democide in Totalitarian States: Mortacracies and Megamurderers". In Charny, Israel W.; Horowitz, Irving Louis (eds.). The Widening Circle of Genocide (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 3–40. doi:10.4324/9781351294089-2. ISBN 9781351294089.
8. Tago, Atsushi; Wayman, Frank (January 2010). "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing, 1949–87". Journal of Peace Research. 47 (1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 3–13. doi:10.1177/0022343309342944. ISSN 0022-3433. JSTOR 25654524. S2CID 145155872.
9. Popper, Karl (2013). Gombrich, E. H. (ed.). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691158136. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 17 August 2021.
10. Wild, John (1964). Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 23. "Popper is committing a serious historical error in attributing the organic theory of the State to Plato, and accusing him of all the fallacies of post–Hegelian and Marxist historicism — the theory that history is controlled by the inexorable laws governing the behaviour of superindividual social entities of which human beings and their free choices are merely subordinate manifestations."
11. Levinson, Ronald B. (1970). In Defense of Plato. New York: Russell and Russell. p. 20. "In spite of the high rating, one must accord his initial intention of fairness, his hatred for the enemies of the 'open society', his zeal to destroy whatever seems, to him, destructive of the welfare of mankind, has led him into the extensive use of what may be called terminological counter-propaganda. With a few exceptions in Popper's favour, however, it is noticeable that reviewers possessed of special competence in particular fields – and here Lindsay is again to be included – have objected to Popper's conclusions in those very fields. Social scientists and social philosophers have deplored his radical denial of historical causation, together with his espousal of Hayek's systematic distrust of larger programs of social reform; historical students of philosophy have protested his violent, polemical handling of Plato, Aristotle, and, particularly, Hegel; ethicists have found contradictions in the ethical theory ('critical dualism') upon which his polemic is largely based."
12. ^ Gentile, Giovanni; Mussolini, Benito (1932). La dottrina del fascismo [The Doctrine of Fascism].
13. Horkheimer, Max; Adorno, Theodor W.; Noeri, Gunzelin (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804736336. Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
14. Rubinstein, W.D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-582-50601-5.
15. ^ Mawdsley, Evan (2011). The Russian Civil War. Birlinn. ISBN 9780857901231.
16. ^ Ronald Suny. Red Flag Unfurled: History, Historians and the Russian Revolution (Verso Books, 2017).
17. Hough, Jerry F. (1987). "The "Dark Forces," the Totalitarian Model, and Soviet History". The Russian Review. 46 (4): 397–403. doi:10.2307/130293. ISSN 0036-0341. JSTOR 130293.
18. ^ Riley, Alexander; Siewers, Alfred Kentigern (June 18, 2019). The Totalitarian Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781793605344. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
19. Fuentes, Juan Francisco (April 29, 2019). Totalitarianisms: The Closed Society and Its Friends. A History of Crossed Languages. Ed. Universidad de Cantabria. ISBN 9788481028898. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
20. Gerson, Lennard (September 1, 2013). Lenin and the Twentieth Century: A Bertram D. Wolfe Retrospective. Hoover Press. ISBN 9780817979331. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
21. Gregor, Richard (1974). Resolutions and Decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Volume 2: The Early Soviet Period 1917–1929. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781487590116. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
22. ^ The Totalitarian Experiment in Twentieth-century Europe: Understanding the Poverty of Great Politics. Taylor & Francis. 2006. ISBN 978-0-415-19278-1.
23. Delzell, Charles F. (Spring 1988). "Remembering Mussolini". The Wilson Quarterly. 12 (2). Washington, D.C.: Wilson Quarterly: 127. JSTOR 40257305. Archived from the original on 2022-05-13. Retrieved 2022-04-24. Retrieved April 8, 2022
24. Schmitt, Carl (1927). University of Chicago Press (ed.). Der Begriff des Politischen [The Concept of the Political] (in German) (1996 ed.). Rutgers University Press. p. 22. ISBN 0226738868.
25. ^ Franco: Anatomy of a Dictator. Bloomsbury. 18 December 2017. ISBN 978-1-78672-300-0.
26. Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN 978-9042005525. Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation.
27. Guilhot, Nicholas (2005). The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order (hardcover ed.). New York City: Columbia University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0231131247. The opposition between the West and Soviet totalitarianism was often presented as an opposition both moral and epistemological between truth and falsehood. The democratic, social, and economic credentials of the Soviet Union were typically seen as 'lies' and as the product of deliberate and multiform propaganda. ... In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism.
28. Reisch, George A. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 978-0521546898.
29. Defty, Brook (2007). "2. Launching the New Propaganda Policy, 1948. 3. Building a Concerted Counter-offensive: Co-operation with other powers. 4. Close and Continuous Liaison: British and American co-operation, 1950–51. 5. A Global Propaganda Offensive: Churchill and the revival of political warfare". Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945–1953: The Information Research Department (1st paperback ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0714683614.
30. Caute, David (2010). Politics and the Novel during the Cold War. Transaction Publishers. pp. 95–99. ISBN 978-1412831369. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. Retrieved 2020-11-22.
31. Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-1139446631. Academic Sovietology, a child of the early Cold War, was dominated by the 'totalitarian model' of Soviet politics. Until the 1960s it was almost impossible to advance any other interpretation, in the USA at least.
32. Lenoe, Matt (June 2002). "Did Stalin Kill Kirov and Does it Matter?". The Journal of Modern History. 74 (2): 352–380. doi:10.1086/343411. ISSN 0022-2801. S2CID 142829949.
33. ^ Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-1139446631. Tucker's work stressed the absolute nature of Stalin's power, an assumption which was, increasingly, challenged by later revisionist historians. In his Origins of the Great Purges, Arch Getty argued that the Soviet political system was chaotic, that institutions often escaped the control of the centre, and that Stalin's leadership consisted to a considerable extent in responding, on an ad hoc basis, to political crises as they arose. Getty's work was influenced by political science of the 1960s onwards, which, in a critique of the totalitarian model, began to consider the possibility that relatively autonomous bureaucratic institutions might have had some influence on policy-making at the highest level.
34. Fitzpatrick, Sheila (November 2007). "Revisionism in Soviet History". History and Theory. 46 (4): 77–91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2007.00429.x. ISSN 1468-2303. . . . the Western scholars who, in the 1990s and 2000s, were most active in scouring the new archives for data on Soviet repression were revisionists (always 'archive rats') such as Arch Getty and Lynne Viola.
35. Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1139446631. In 1953, Carl Friedrich characterised totalitarian systems in terms of five points: an official ideology, control of weapons and of media, use of terror, and a single mass party, 'usually under a single leader.' There was, of course, an assumption that the leader was critical to the workings of totalitarianism: at the apex of a monolithic, centralised, and hierarchical system, it was he who issued the orders which were fulfilled, unquestioningly, by his subordinates.
36. Lenoe, Matt (June 2002). "Did Stalin Kill Kirov and Does It Matter?". The Journal of Modern History. 74 (2): 352–380. doi:10.1086/343411. ISSN 0022-2801. S2CID 142829949.
37. ^ Zimmerman, William (September 1980). "Review: How the Soviet Union is Governed". Slavic Review. 39 (3). Cambridge University Press: 482–486. doi:10.2307/2497167. JSTOR 2497167.
38. ^ Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey (2003). "Revising History". In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage. San Francisco: Encounter. pp. 11–57. ISBN 1893554724.
39. ^ Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence. Routledge. 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-67396-9.
40. ^ Saladdin, Ahmed (2019). Totalitarian Space and the Destruction of Aura. Albany: SUNY Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-1438472935.
41. ^ Connelly, John (2010). "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Word". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 11 (4): 819–835. doi:10.1353/kri.2010.0001. S2CID 143510612.
42. Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (13 September 2022). Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691169521.
43. Rummel, R.J. (1994). "Democide in Totalitarian States: Mortacracies and Megamurderers.". In Charney, Israel W. (ed.). Widening circle of genocide. Transaction Publishers. p. 5.
44. Sources:
    • Wieland, Carsten (2018). "6: De-neutralizing Aid: All Roads Lead to Damascus". Syria and the Neutrality Trap: The Dilemmas of Delivering Humanitarian Aid Through Violent Regimes. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-7556-4138-3.
    • Meininghaus, Esther (2016). Creating Consent in Ba'thist Syria: Women and Welfare in a Totalitarian State. London: I. B. Tauris. pp. 69, 70. ISBN 978-1-78453-115-7.
    • Hashem, Mazen (Spring 2012). "The Levant Reconciling a Century of Contradictions". AJISS. 29 (2): 141. Archived from the original on 5 March 2024 – via academia.edu.
45. Sources:
    • Tucker, Ernest (2019). "21: Middle East at the End of the Cold War, 1979–1993". The Middle East in Modern World History (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-138-49190-8. LCCN 2018043096.
    • Kirkpatrick, Jeane J (1981). "Afghanistan: Implications for Peace and Security". World Affairs. 144 (3): 243. JSTOR 20671902.
    • S.Margolis, Eric (2005). "2: The Bravest Men on Earth". War at the top of the World. 29New York: Routledge. pp. 14, 15. ISBN 0-415-92712-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
46. Payne, Stanley G. (1980). Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Washington Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0299080600.
47. Conquest, Robert (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Press. p. 249. ISBN 0195071328.
48. Arendt 1958, pp. 256–257.
49. Arendt 1958, pp. 308–309.
50. Nemoianu, Virgil (December 1982). "Review of End and Beginnings". Modern Language Notes. 97 (5): 1235–1238.
51. Churchill, Winston (5 October 1938). The Munich Agreement (Speech). House of Commons of the United Kingdom: International Churchill Society. Archived from the original on 26 June 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2020. We in this country, as in other Liberal and democratic countries, have a perfect right to exalt the principle of self-determination, but it comes ill out of the mouths of those in totalitarian states who deny even the smallest element of toleration to every section and creed within their bounds. Many of those countries, in fear of the rise of the Nazi power, ... loathed the idea of having this arbitrary rule of the totalitarian system thrust upon them, and hoped that a stand would be made.
52. Churchill, Winston (16 October 1938). Broadcast to the United States and to London (Speech). International Churchill Society. Archived from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
53. Mann, Michael (2004). Fascists. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 331. ISBN 978-0521831314. Archived from the original on 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2017-10-26.
54. Preston, Paul (2007). The Spanish Civil War: Reaction, Revolution and Revenge (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 64. ISBN 978-0393329872.
55. Salvadó, Francisco J. Romero (2013). Historical Dictionary of the Spanish Civil War. Scarecrow Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0810880092. Archived from the original on 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2019-04-27.
56. Totalitarianism: The Inner History of the Cold War. Oxford University Press. 20 March 1997. ISBN 978-0-19-028148-9.
57. Orwell, George (1946). "Why I Write". Gangrel. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
58. Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution. New York: Scribner. p. 131. ISBN 0684189038.
59. Villa, Dana Richard (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 0521645719.
60. Hoffer, Eric (2002). The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Harper Perennial Modern Classics. pp. 61, 163. ISBN 0060505915.
61. Hanebrink, Paul (July 2018). "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?". Journal of Contemporary History. 53 (3): 624. doi:10.1177/0022009417704894. S2CID 158028188.
62. Hanebrink, Paul (July 2018). "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?". Journal of Contemporary History. 53 (3): 622–643. doi:10.1177/0022009417704894. S2CID 158028188.
63. Brzezinski, Zbigniew; Friedrich, Carl (1956). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674332607.
64. Brzezinski & Friedrich, 1956, p.22.
65. Brzezinski & Friedrich 1956, p. 22.
66. Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. pp. 186–189, 233–234. ISBN 978-0684189031.
67. ^ Kershaw, Ian (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. London; New York: Arnold; Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0340760284. OCLC 43419425.
68. Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. p. 241. ISBN 978-0684189031.
69. Khamis, B. Gold, Vaughn, Sahar, Paul, Katherine (2013). "22. Propaganda in Egypt and Syria's "Cyberwars": Contexts, Actors, Tools, and Tactics". In Auerbach, Castronovo, Jonathan, Russ (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Propaganda Studies. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-976441-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
70. Wedeen, Lisa (2015). Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/978022345536.001.0001 (inactive 1 November 2024). ISBN 978-0-226-33337-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
71. Meininghaus, Esther (2016). Creating Consent in Ba'thist Syria: Women and Welfare in a Totalitarian State. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-78453-115-7.
72. "Syrian rebels topple President Assad, prime minister calls for free elections". Reuters. 8 December 2024. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
73. Aron, Raymond (1968). Democracy and Totalitarianism. Littlehampton Book Services. p. 195. ISBN 978-0297002529.
74. Saad, Asma (21 February 2018). "Eritrea's Silent Totalitarianism". McGill Journal of Political Studies (21). Archived from the original on 7 October 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
75. Neumayer, Laure (2018). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. Routledge. ISBN 9781351141741.
76. Schönpflug, Daniel (2007). "Histoires croisées: François Furet, Ernst Nolte and a Comparative History of Totalitarian Movements". European History Quarterly. 37 (2): 265–290. doi:10.1177/0265691407075595. S2CID 143074271.
77. Singer, Daniel (17 April 1995). "The Sound and the Furet". The Nation. Archived from the original on 17 March 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2020. Furet, borrowing from Hannah Arendt, describes Bolsheviks and Nazis as totalitarian twins, conflicting yet united.
78. Singer, Daniel (2 November 1999). "Exploiting a Tragedy, or Le Rouge en Noir". The Nation. Archived from the original on 26 July 2019. Retrieved 7 August 2020. ... the totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia is undeniable.
79. Grobman, Gary M. (1990). "Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State". Remember.org. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 7 August 2020. The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state.
80. Hobsbawm, Eric (2012). "Revolutionaries". History and Illusion. Abacus. ISBN 978-0349120560.
81. Žižek, Slavoj (2002). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion. London and New York: Verso. p. 169. ISBN 9781859844250.
82. Shorten, Richard (2012). Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present. Palgrave. ISBN 978-0230252073.
83. Tismăneanu, Vladimir (2012). The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520954175.
84. Tucker, Aviezer (2015). The Legacies of Totalitarianism: A Theoretical Framework. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1316393055.
85. Fuentes, Juan Francisco (2015). "How Words Reshape the Past: The 'Old, Old Story of Totalitarianism". Politics, Religion & Ideology. 16 (2–3): 282–297. doi:10.1080/21567689.2015.1084928. S2CID 155157905.
86. Zuboff, Shoshana (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610395694. OCLC 1049577294.
87. Ord, Toby (2020). "Future Risks". The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1526600196.
88. Clarke, R. (1988). "Information Technology and Dataveillance". Communications of the ACM. 31 (5): 498–512. doi:10.1145/42411.42413. S2CID 6826824.
89. "China invents the digital totalitarian state". The Economist. 17 December 2017. Archived from the original on 14 September 2018. Retrieved 14 September 2018.
90. Leigh, Karen; Lee, Dandan (2 December 2018). "China's Radical Plan to Judge Each Citizen's Behavior". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2 January 2019. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
91. Lucas, Rob (January–February 2020). "The Surveillance Business". New Left Review. 121. Archived from the original on 21 June 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
92. Brennan-Marquez, K. (2012). "A Modest Defence of Mind Reading". Yale Journal of Law and Technology. 15 (214). Archived from the original on 2020-08-10.
93. Pickett, K. (16 April 2020). "Totalitarianism: Congressman calls method to track coronavirus cases an invasion of privacy". Washington Examiner. Archived from the original on 22 April 2020. Retrieved 23 April 2020.
94. Helbing, Dirk; Frey, Bruno S.; Gigerenzer, Gerd; Hafen, Ernst; Hagner, Michael; Hofstetter, Yvonne; van den Hoven, Jeroen; Zicari, Roberto V.; Zwitter, Andrej (2019). "Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?" (PDF). Towards Digital Enlightenment. pp. 73–98. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_7. ISBN 978-3-319-90868-7. S2CID 46925747. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-05-26. (also published in Helbing, D.; Frey, B. S.; Gigerenzer, G.; et al. (2019). "Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence?". Towards Digital Enlightenment: Essays on the Dark and Light Sides of the Digital Revolution. Springer, Cham. pp. 73–98. ISBN 978-3319908694.)
95. Turchin, Alexey; Denkenberger, David (3 May 2018). "Classification of global catastrophic risks connected with artificial intelligence". AI & Society. 35 (1): 147–163. doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0845-5. S2CID 19208453.
96. Bostrom, Nick (February 2013). "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority". Global Policy. 4 (1): 15–31. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12002.
97. *Sakhi, Nilofar (December 2022). "The Taliban Takeover in Afghanistan and Security Paradox". Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs. 9 (3): 383–401. doi:10.1177/23477970221130882. S2CID 253945821. Afghanistan is now controlled by a militant group that operates out of a totalitarian ideology.
    • Madadi, Sayed (6 September 2022). "Dysfunctional centralization and growing fragility under Taliban rule". Middle East Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2022. In other words, the centralized political and governance institutions of the former republic were unaccountable enough that they now comfortably accommodate the totalitarian objectives of the Taliban without giving the people any chance to resist peacefully.
    • Sadr, Omar (23 March 2022). "Afghanistan's Public Intellectuals Fail to Denounce the Taliban". Fair Observer. Retrieved 28 November 2022. The Taliban government currently installed in Afghanistan is not simply another dictatorship. By all standards, it is a totalitarian regime.
    • "Dismantlement of the Taliban regime is the only way forward for Afghanistan". Atlantic Council. 8 September 2022. Retrieved 28 November 2022. As with any other ideological movement, the Taliban's Islamic government is transformative and totalitarian in nature.
    • Akbari, Farkhondeh (7 March 2022). "The Risks Facing Hazaras in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan". George Washington University. Archived from the original on 14 January 2023. Retrieved 28 November 2022. In the Taliban's totalitarian Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, there is no meaningful political inclusivity or representation for Hazaras at any level.
98. Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated: " declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria", adding that the title of caliph can "only be given by the entire Muslim nation", not by a single group. - Strange, Hannah (5 July 2014). "Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi addresses Muslims in Mosul". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
99. Bunzel, Cole (27 November 2019). "Caliph Incognito: The Ridicule of Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi". www.jihadica.com. Archived from the original on 2 January 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
100. Hamid, Shadi (1 November 2016). "What a caliphate really is—and how the Islamic State is not one". Brookings. Archived from the original on 1 April 2020. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
101. Winter, Charlie (27 March 2016). "Totalitarianism 101: The Islamic State's Offline Propaganda Strategy".
102. Filipec, Ondrej (2020). The Islamic State From Terrorism to Totalitarian Insurgency. Routledge. ISBN 9780367457631.
103. Peter, Bernholz (February 2019). "Supreme Values, Totalitarianism, and Terrorism". The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice. Vol. 1.
104. Haslett, Allison (2021). "The Islamic State: A Political-Religious Totalitarian Regime". Scientia et Humanitas: A Journal of Student Research. Middle Tennessee State University. Islamic State embraces the most violent, extreme traits of Jihadi-Salafism. the State merged religious dogma and state control together to create a political-religious totalitarian regime that was not bound by physical borders
105. European Dictatorships 1918-1945. Routledge. 12 February 2016. ISBN 978-1-317-29422-1.
106. La construcción de la dictadura franquista en Cantabria. Ed. Universidad de Cantabria. 20 November 2020. ISBN 978-84-8102-695-5.
107. El Franquismo y la apropiación del pasado: El uso de la historia, de la arqueología y de la historia del arte para la legitimación de la dictadura. Editorial Pablo Iglesias. 2 July 2016. ISBN 978-84-95886-89-7.
108. Estado y derecho en el franquismo: El nacionalsindicalismo. F. J. Conde y Luis Legaz Lacambra. Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. 1996. ISBN 978-84-259-1008-1.
109. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers. 2000. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0.
110. https://ruja.ujaen.es/jspui/bitstream/10953/1800/1/978-84-1122-139-9.pdf
111. González Prieto, Luis Aurelio (2021). "La voluntad totalitaria del Franquismo". Revista del Posgrado en Derecho de la Unam (14): 44. doi:10.22201/ppd.26831783e.2021.14.170.
112. Viñas, Ángel (2012). En el combate por la historia: la República, la guerra civil, el franquismo (in Spanish). Pasado y Presente. ISBN 978-8493914394. Archived from the original on 2020-10-05. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
113. "Franco edicts". Archived from the original on 26 June 2008. Retrieved 16 December 2005.
114. Payne, Stanley G. (1987). The Franco Regime, 1936–1975. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 323–324. ISBN 978-0-299-11070-3.
115. Jensen, Geoffrey. "Franco: Soldier, Commander, Dictator". Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, Inc., 2005. p. 110-111.
116. Reuter, Tim (19 May 2014). "Before China's Transformation, There Was The 'Spanish Miracle'". Forbes Magazine. Archived from the original on 24 December 2019. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
117. Payne (2000), p. 645
118. Bernholz, P. (2017). Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Supreme Values: History and Theory. Studies in Public Choice. Springer International Publishing. p. 33. ISBN 978-3-319-56907-9. Retrieved 2023-02-28.
119. Congleton, R.D.; Grofman, B.N.; Voigt, S. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 1. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford University Press. p. 860. ISBN 978-0-19-046974-0. Retrieved 2023-02-28.
120. Maier, H.; Schäfer, M. (2007). Totalitarianism and Political Religions, Volume II: Concepts for the Comparison of Dictatorships. Totalitarianism Movements and Political Religions. Taylor & Francis. p. 264. ISBN 978-1-134-06346-8. Retrieved 2023-02-28.
121. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. pp. 225–227. ISBN 978-0684189031.
122. ^ Fitzpatrick, Sheila (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195050004.
123. Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (8 September 2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-1-139-44663-1.
124. Rubin, Eli (2008). Synthetic Socialism: Plastics & Dictatorship in the German Democratic Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1469606774.
125. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. p. 228. ISBN 978-0684189031.
126. Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. p. 233. ISBN 978-0684189031.
127. Buhle, Paul; Rice-Maximin, Edward Francis (1995). William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of Empire. Psychology Press. p. 192. ISBN 0349120560.
128. Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. pp. 41–58. ISBN 978-0872863293.
129. Petras, James (November 1, 1999). "The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited". Monthly Review. 51 (6): 47. doi:10.14452/MR-051-06-1999-10_4. Archived from the original on May 16, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2021.
130. Traverso, Enzo (2001). Le Totalitarisme: Le XXe siècle en débat [Totalitarianism: The 20th Century in Debate] (in French). Poche. ISBN 978-2020378574.
131. Losurdo, Domenico (January 2004). "Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism". Historical Materialism. 12 (2): 25–55. doi:10.1163/1569206041551663.

Notes

1. Caliphate claim of "Islamic State" group is disputed and declared as illegal by traditional Islamic scholarship.

Further reading

• Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Origins of Totalitarianism (Second Enlarged ed.). New York: Meridian Books. LCCN 58-11927.
• Armstrong, John A. The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961).
• Béja, Jean-Philippe (March 2019). "Xi Jinping's China: On the Road to Neo-totalitarianism". Social Research: An International Quarterly. 86 (1): 203–230. doi:10.1353/sor.2019.0009. S2CID 199140716. ProQuest 2249726077. Archived from the original on December 3, 2022.
• Bernholz, Peter. "Ideocracy and totalitarianism: A formal analysis incorporating ideology", Public Choice 108, 2001, pp. 33–75.
• Bernholz, Peter. "Ideology, sects, state and totalitarianism. A general theory". In: H. Maier and M. Schaefer (eds.): Totalitarianism and Political Religions, Vol. II (Routledge, 2007), pp. 246–270.
• Borkenau, Franz, The Totalitarian Enemy (London: Faber and Faber 1940).
• Bracher, Karl Dietrich, "The Disputed Concept of Totalitarianism," pp. 11–33 from Totalitarianism Reconsidered edited by Ernest A. Menze (Kennikat Press, 1981) ISBN 0804692688.
• Congleton, Roger D. "Governance by true believers: Supreme duties with and without totalitarianism." Constitutional Political Economy 31.1 (2020): 111–141. online
• Connelly, John. "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Word" Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 11#4 (2010) 819–835. online.
• Curtis, Michael. Totalitarianism (1979) online
• Devlin, Nicholas. "Hannah Arendt and Marxist Theories of Totalitarianism." Modern Intellectual History (2021): 1–23 online.
• Diamond, Larry. "The road to digital unfreedom: The threat of postmodern totalitarianism." Journal of Democracy 30.1 (2019): 20–24. excerpt
• Fitzpatrick, Sheila, and Michael Geyer, eds. Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
• Friedrich, Carl and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Harvard University Press, 1st ed. 1956, 2nd ed. 1965).
• Gach, Nataliia. "From totalitarianism to democracy: Building learner autonomy in Ukrainian higher education." Issues in Educational Research 30.2 (2020): 532–554. online
• Gleason, Abbott. Totalitarianism: The Inner History Of The Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), ISBN 0195050177.
• Gray, Phillip W. Totalitarianism: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2023), ISBN 9781032183732.
• Gregor, A. Totalitarianism and political religion (Stanford University Press, 2020).
• Hanebrink, Paul. "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?" Journal of Contemporary History (July 2018) Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp. 622–643
• Hermet, Guy, with Pierre Hassner and Jacques Rupnik, Totalitarismes (Paris: Éditions Economica, 1984).
• Jainchill, Andrew, and Samuel Moyn. "French democracy between totalitarianism and solidarity: Pierre Rosanvallon and revisionist historiography." Journal of Modern History 76.1 (2004): 107–154. online
• Joscelyne, Sophie. "Norman Mailer and American Totalitarianism in the 1960s." Modern Intellectual History 19.1 (2022): 241–267 online.
• Keller, Marcello Sorce. "Why is Music so Ideological, Why Do Totalitarian States Take It So Seriously", Journal of Musicological Research, XXVI (2007), no. 2–3, pp. 91–122.
• Kirkpatrick, Jeane, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (London: Simon & Schuster, 1982).
• Laqueur, Walter, The Fate of the Revolution Interpretations of Soviet History From 1917 to the Present (London: Collier Books, 1987) ISBN 002034080X.
• Menze, Ernest, ed. Totalitarianism reconsidered (1981) online essays by experts
• Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (Yale University Press, 1944).
• Murray, Ewan. Shut Up: Tale of Totalitarianism (2005).
• Nicholls, A.J. "Historians and Totalitarianism: The Impact of German Unification." Journal of Contemporary History 36.4 (2001): 653–661.
• Patrikeeff, Felix. "Stalinism, Totalitarian Society and the Politics of 'Perfect Control'", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, (Summer 2003), Vol. 4 Issue 1, pp. 23–46.
• Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1996).
• Rak, Joanna, and Roman Bäcker. "Theory behind Russian Quest for Totalitarianism. Analysis of Discursive Swing in Putin's Speeches." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 53.1 (2020): 13–26 online.
• Roberts, David D. Totalitarianism (John Wiley & Sons, 2020).
• Rocker, Rudolf, Nationalism and Culture (Covici-Friede, 1937).
• Sartori, Giovanni, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, N.J: Chatham House, 1987).
• Sauer, Wolfgang. "National Socialism: totalitarianism or fascism?" American Historical Review, Volume 73, Issue #2 (December 1967): 404–424. online.
• Saxonberg, Steven. Pre-modernity, totalitarianism and the non-banality of evil: A comparison of Germany, Spain, Sweden and France (Springer Nature, 2019).
• Schapiro, Leonard. Totalitarianism (London: The Pall Mall Press, 1972).
• Selinger, William. "The politics of Arendtian historiography: European federation and the origins of totalitarianism." Modern Intellectual History 13.2 (2016): 417–446.
• Skotheim, Robert Allen. Totalitarianism and American social thought (1971) online
• Talmon, J. L., The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1952).
• Traverso, Enzo, Le Totalitarisme : Le XXe siècle en débat (Paris: Poche, 2001).
• Tuori, Kaius. "Narratives and Normativity: Totalitarianism and Narrative Change in the European Legal Tradition after World War II." Law and History Review 37.2 (2019): 605–638 online.
• Žižek, Slavoj, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001). online

External links

• "Totalitarianism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.